Writ petition challenges – Election of non-residents to Maharagama UC

Published : 9:10 am  May 17, 2018 | No comments so far |  |  (113) reads | 

By S.S. Selvanayagam  

Court of Appeal yesterday (16) issued notices on 23 members of the Maharagama Urban Council who had been elected on the Independent Group No: 2.  
Justices P. Padman Surasena (President/CA) and Arjuna Obeysekara issued the Notices returnable for June 28.  


One of the Registered Voters Chandrasena Perera of Maharagama filed the writ petition challenging impugned 23 respondents who had been declared and elected to the Maharagama Urban Council in the election held on 10th February 2018.  


Faisz Musthapha PC with Amarasiri Panditharatne appeared for the Petitioner.   


 H.  Jayasheeli, W.A.  Jayathissa, Sudarshani W.  Jayathissa all from Wellawatta and M.S.  Piyarathna, G.A.  Sisira, Samanmala Janaki, Kanchana Madhushini, R.W.  Wajira Malkanthi, Sunethra Priyadarshani, Lakmini Thushari Gunawardana, Hansani Ruwanthi, Lalith Gunawardana, S.A.  Sumanawathi,  A.  Janapadaya, Nihal Dayarathna,  J.L.  Kumarasiri, W. Dharmapriya, Lakmini Madhushani, Jayanthi Jayasekara, Nadeeka Kumari, Dilanthi Kusumsiri, D.  Wimalawathi, all from Badalgama, Charlotte Kalyani of Hunumulla, B. D.  Josephine of Asgiriya as well as the Election Commission Chairman and its members and Maharagama Urban Council as respondents.  


Petitioner states that the 23 respondents have assumed office as members of the Maharagama Urban Council and that on the date of the commencement of the preparation or revision of the parliamentary register for the time being in operation for the electoral district of Colombo in which the electoral area of the Maharagama Urban Council is situated, the aforesaid respondents were not qualified to have their names entered in that register.  


 He states that on the first date of June in the year of the commencement of the preparation or revision of that register, which is the year 2017, these respondents were not ordinary residents in that electoral area of the Maharagama Urban Council.  

 

He states that these respondents were not qualified for election as members of the Maharagama Urban Council 


He states that these respondents were not qualified for election as members of the Maharagama Urban Council and/or to sit as members and/or to vote as members in as much as the aforesaid respondents did not have the general qualification for election required by Section 8 of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance.   


He contends the election of these respondents are therefore void since they did not have the qualification required by Section 08 of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance.